Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba
A High Court in Accra will today determine an application filed by former Chief Executive Officer of National Food Buffer Stock Company Limited (NAFCO), Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba, asking it to strike out the charge sheet that initiated the criminal proceedings against him and his wife.
He contends that the charges levelled against him by the Attorney General are vague, ambiguous, duplicitous and renders a fair trial impossible, as well as violate his fundamental human rights as an accused person under the constitution.
Mr. Aludiba is standing trial with his wife, Faiza Seidu Wuni, for allegedly stealing and causing financial loss to the state totalling GH¢62.6 million.
Moving the application yesterday, his lawyer, Godfred Yeboah Dame, argued that the charge sheet is what invokes the court’s jurisdiction in criminal proceedings of this nature.
According to him, it is therefore imperative that the charge sheet be prepared in accordance with the prescriptions of the law and where it is demonstrated that the charge sheet fails to satisfy the mandatory requirements stipulated in Article 19(2) (d) of the constitution as well as Section 109 and 112 of Act 30, the charge is bad in law and unfit to commence a trial and therefore, has to be struck out.
He said the charges levelled against the accused person are deficient as they do not state the specific details of the offences with which his client is charged with, to enable him understand the import of the offences and to adequately prepare for his defence.
Mr. Dame pointed out that the prosecution has combined a number of distinct offences into one charge against the accused person, and this again violates his right to a fair trial since he is deprived of a clear understanding of the nature of charges preferred against him to enable him adequately prepare for the trial.
“The prosecution has charged offences arising out of the same series of transaction, the same facts and the same sums of money composed of the offences of stealing and defrauding by false pretences which we contend is untenable in law and undermines the right of the first accused person to a fair trial,” he argued.
He told the court that the defence is not asking for evidence to be adduced in support of the various charges from the prosecution.
Highlighting the offence of stealing for instance, Mr. Dame said the prosecution states such a broad time frame for the commissioning of the offence by stating that the offence took place between February 2017 and February 2025.
“What makes it fundamentally flawed is that the sum of GH¢50 million seems to have arisen out of an aggregate of different transactions and the prosecution admitted to this in the affidavit in opposition,” he said.
Mr. Dame added that “lumping the charges together into one count without even stating the number of transactions, when each of them occurred, how the stealing of sum occurred and expecting first accused to contest the charges at trial is like folding the eye of a boxer and tying his hands at his back and expecting him to box in the ring. That is unfair.”
Opposition
The application was opposed by Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who argued that Article 19(2) (d) of the Constitution is clear that the requirement is to inform the accused person in a language that he understands, and the Supreme Court has explained this to mean “in ordinary language.”
He contended that the particulars of offence is not the place for evidence as it is merely to give sufficient information to the accused person, and this is exactly what Section 112(1) of Act 30 said.
“It is therefore, completely misconceived to require that particulars of offence or the charge sheet should contain every detail, including how the accused person even committed the offence. Our contention is that every single count has sufficient information to enable the accused person, if he is so capable, to put forward a defence,” Dr. Srem-Sai argued.
On the issue of charging two different offences in respect of the same act or transaction, he pointed out that Section 157 of Act 30 specifically makes provision for this issue of defrauding by false pretences and stealing, because of the closeness in the ingredient.
“The court is empowered to even when stealing alone is charged to convict on defrauding by false pretences. What it means is that the court cannot convict on both. But that is a different contention that a prosecutor cannot charge him,” the Deputy Attorney General added.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak